Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 182 - CESTAT ALLAHABADCENVAT credit - As per the Revenue, the services provided by IHCL were “Franchisee Services” in which case they were not entitled to avail the entire credit of the Service Tax paid by the Service provider, but the credit should have been availed only to the extent of 20% in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- In the case of Piem Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik [2016 (4) TMI 290 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the service recipient from the same service provider i.e. M/s.IHCL was held entitled to 100% credit of the Service Tax by holding that the services provided by M/s.IHCL were nothing but “Management Consultancy Services” - the appellant is entitled to the full 100% credit of Service Tax paid by M/s. IHCL - decided in favor of appellant. Mandap Keeper Services - appellant explains that they have paid Service Tax on the said services after availing 60% abatement and without availing any Cenvat Credit, they were discharging their full Service Tax liability in respect of such Hall Hire Charges, without the claim of any abatement, for which case they would be entitled to full Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on various input services - Held that:- Inasmuch as the dispute relates to the factual position we deem it fit to set aside the demand on the said count and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the appellant’s claim - matter on remand. Demand of around ₹ 16.90 Lakhs is confirmed on “Shop and Showcase Rental”, “Business Center Income” and “Health Club Services” - Held that:- Appellant submits that they have already discharged their tax liability on the said services by including the same in the value of “Banquet, Internet and Beauty Parlour Services”. Inasmuch as the said dispute also relates to factual verification and inasmuch as we have already remanded the matter in respect of other demand we direct the original authority to verify the appellant’s claim in respect of the said services also - matter on remand. Demand of ₹ 51,154/- stands confirmed on “Vodafone Tower Rental” - Held that:- according to the appellant this also stands already discharged under the head “Banquet”. This also needs verification which would be done by the original adjudicating authority - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|